Paul Draper is a possible criminal against Mankind !!

[Y.Porat]

Paul Draper is a possible criminal against Mankind !!

in order to test and prove it
i will start with a simple question to PD

(and my verdict depends on his answer !!)

Mr PD
what is your definition for the :-

Energy of the**single*** photon ??

TIA
Y.Porat
---------------------

[Bart Sinclair]

you seems brain injured

[Y.Porat]

-------------
let him answer and than we will see
about brain injury or not !!

next
Y.P
-------------------------

[Mark Thorson]

Please delete sci.chem from the inappropriate crosspostings
if you respond to this crap. Thank you.

[Y.Porat]

On Nov 27, 5:51 pm, Mark Thorson <nos...@sonic.net> wrote:
> Please delete sci.chem from the inappropriate crosspostings
> if you respond to this crap.  Thank you.

------------------
E = hf
belongs to chemistry as well !!!

y.p
---------------------

[PD]

On 11/27/2011 4:34 AM, Y.Porat wrote:
>
> Paul Draper is a possible criminal against Mankind !!
>
> in order to test and prove it
> i will start with a simple question to PD
>
> (and my verdict depends on his answer !!)
>
> Mr PD
> what is your definition for the :-
>
> Energy of the**single*** photon ??

It's not a definition. It is a relationship between two *measured*
properties of photons. This observational relationship is E=hf. Not a
definition.

[PD]

Porat, I do not wish to post to sci.chem. I don't really care that you
are so hungry for publicity that you splatter yourself where you are not
welcome.

[Y.Porat]

----------------------
so how could you talk
about a huge number of photons in hf
as you justly talked about a huge number of photons
because it was** me** who told you that first (:-)
that H=hf is dealing with a huge number of photon entities !!
about a** huge** number of
photons
no one ever before me said that
or defined its range!!)
AND LATER I EVEN SUGGESTED TO TAKE THAT n as the scalar part of
Planck time

about
44 exp -38 (i am not sure now i remember correct the Plank
time by hearth
please correct me about the exact figure !!

is it not more than possible history of science !!...


and do you know
what was my insight and base to say the above ""::

it was my historic definition about the
**range** to define that minimal photon energy

NO ONE EVER BEFORE ME DID IT !!
not verbally and not mathematically !!!
it is my historic formula :!!:--
=============================
E minimum =hf time n
while
0< n <<<1.0000 !!!
===============================
got it at last ??!!
why it is an historic formula ??

and mind you
it is historic
because of its
FAR GOING MEANING AND APPLICATIONS
FOR '' MODERN PHYSICS''

FOR INSTANCE
TALKING ABOUT A SINGLE PHOTON
'''INTERFERING WITH ITSELF'''
IS PHYSICS NONSENSE !!

and much more even beyond that
that will come later !!

so got it
why it is an historic breakthrough ??

and why trying to undermine it
is a crime against mankind ??!!

Y.Porat
---------------------------




TIA
Y.Porat
------------


while youhavenot the definition of
your base for counting them ??

[Y.Porat]

======================================
and now just another example about the revolutionary
use of the above historic formula is

a better or more accurately saying
is
a better correct , realistic understanding and explanation
of THE ** DOPPLER EFFECT **!!

with no more claim that

''energy or mass (the only mass - ) of a photon''
is changing while depending on different
moving frames ''''!!!

ATB
Y.Porat
-----------------------------

[PD]

On 11/27/2011 10:06 PM, Y.Porat wrote:
> On Nov 27, 9:03 pm, PD<thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 11/27/2011 4:34 AM, Y.Porat wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> Paul Draper is a possible criminal against Mankind !!
>>
>>> in order to test and prove it
>>> i will start with a simple question to PD
>>
>>> (and my verdict depends on his answer !!)
>>
>>> Mr PD
>>> what is your definition for the :-
>>
>>> Energy of the**single*** photon ??
>>
>> It's not a definition. It is a relationship between two *measured*
>> properties of photons. This observational relationship is E=hf. Not a
>> definition.
>
> ----------------------
> so how could you talk
> about a huge number of photons in hf

I didn't.
You may have, but I never have.

[Y.Porat]

--------------
i will remind you:
you was talking about a stream of photons !! in context of hf

Y.P
------------------

[PD]

On 11/28/2011 10:57 AM, Y.Porat wrote:

> --------------
> i will remind you:
> you was talking about a stream of photons !! in context of hf

hf does not describe a stream of photons.

The mass of a drop of water does not have much to do with the amount of
water delivered by a hose, either.

[Y.Porat]

----------------
so according to you
hf is sort of a dropping tap
that drops each second a drop energy hf ??
Y.Porat
----------------------------

[Henry Wilson DSc.]

The corrrect equation is E = h(c+v)/lambda

Photon 'frequency' is a nubulous and undefined quantity.

[Henry Wilson DSc.]

On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 12:13:50 -0800 (PST), "Y.Porat" <y.y....@gmail.com>
wrote:

Porat, Diaper is a professional nuisance....

According to google, he has made 62700 posts to this NG.
http://www.scisite.info/PD.jpg

He is obviously unemployed apart from being paid directly by you-know-who to
disrupt any criticism of their fake symbol of intellectual superiority.

[PD]

On 11/28/2011 2:45 PM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:

>>
>> It's not a definition. It is a relationship between two *measured*
>> properties of photons. This observational relationship is E=hf. Not a
>> definition.
>
> The corrrect equation is E = h(c+v)/lambda
>
> Photon 'frequency' is a nubulous and undefined quantity.
>

Don't be ridiculous. Frequency and wavelength are both unambiguously
measurable.

Just because YOU don't understand what frequency of light means, and you
want to try to attach some inappropriate image to it so that it has some
meaning you understand, doesn't imply anything other than a shortcoming
in your own head.

[PD]

hf is not a tap at all.

A light source is like a tap, yes. However, the rate is not limited to
one drop a second. It can emit 1 drop every ninety thousand years, or it
can emit 15 trillion drops a second. NEITHER of those rates have
anything to do with f. f is not a rate of emission, and it never has been.

E=hf is the relationship between the energy E of each drop (independent
of how many drops come from the tap each second) and a property of EACH
DROP called the frequency (which is also independent of how many drops
come from the tap each second).

As I told you in a different post, you have confused the f in E=hf with
some kind of emission rate, when in fact it has NOTHING AT ALL to do
with the emission rate of the photons.

[PD]

On 11/28/2011 3:02 PM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:

>
> Porat, Diaper is a professional nuisance....
>
> According to google, he has made 62700 posts to this NG.
> http://www.scisite.info/PD.jpg

Fascinating. You can't even use Google properly. Notice in your own
image that the first four search returns are not posts by me at all. So
what do you think those 62700 are search results of?

> He is obviously unemployed apart from being paid directly by you-know-who to
> disrupt any criticism of their fake symbol of intellectual superiority.

Obviously your skills at assessing my employment are directly connected
with your skills at using Google.

[xxein]

On Nov 28, 4:02 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc.) wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 12:13:50 -0800 (PST), "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com>

> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Nov 28, 8:47 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On 11/28/2011 10:57 AM, Y.Porat wrote:
>
> >> > --------------
> >> > i  will  remind you:
> >> > you was talking  about a stream of photons !! in   context of hf
>
> >> hf does not describe a stream of photons.
>
> >> The mass of a drop of water does not have much to do with the amount of
> >> water delivered by a hose, either.
>
> >----------------
> >so according to  you
> >hf is sort of a dropping  tap
> >that drops each second a drop  energy hf ??
> >Y.Porat
> >----------------------------
>
> Porat, Diaper is a professional nuisance....
>

> According to google, he has made 62700 posts to this NG.http://www.scisite.info/PD.jpg

>
> He is obviously unemployed apart from being paid directly by you-know-who to

> disrupt any criticism of their fake symbol of intellectual superiority.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

xxein: Tell me about me, Mr. Know it all.

[xxein]

xxein: Or are his skills at determining a physic.

[xxein]

On Nov 28, 3:45 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc.) wrote:

> Photon 'frequency' is a nubulous and undefined quantity.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

xxein: Only if it is c+v. What if it is c-v? Does that negate the
energy of light? Do you even know what lambda is? I doubt it.

[xxein]

xxein: Sorry to bust your bubble but we can only measure frequency
according to some clock. We infer a wavelenghth from that.

I'd be glad to show you how the 2nd postulate (SR) is misleading and
wrong.

Einstein stripped the physical logic out of Lorentz to make a shortcut
math. In doing so, he made the understanding of the physic into a
math-based process.

The universe says "What is this math crap? Try to control me with
that? OK. Lorentz tickled me but Einstein wants to make me into his
whore. Fat chance. You don't understand me".

Well? She said it. I didn't.

[Henry Wilson DSc.]

On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 16:22:20 -0600, PD <thedrap...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 11/28/2011 2:45 PM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
>
>>>
>>> It's not a definition. It is a relationship between two *measured*
>>> properties of photons. This observational relationship is E=hf. Not a
>>> definition.
>>
>> The corrrect equation is E = h(c+v)/lambda
>>
>> Photon 'frequency' is a nubulous and undefined quantity.
>>
>
>Don't be ridiculous. Frequency and wavelength are both unambiguously
>measurable.

Nobody has even associated a frequency with a stream of monochromatic
photons except by inference that one exists as f = c/lambda....the wave
arrival rate.

[PD]

On Nov 28, 7:35 pm, xxein <xx...@att.net> wrote:
> On Nov 28, 5:22 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 11/28/2011 2:45 PM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
>
> > >> It's not a definition. It is a relationship between two *measured*
> > >> properties of photons. This observational relationship is E=hf. Not a
> > >> definition.
>
> > > The corrrect equation is E = h(c+v)/lambda
>
> > > Photon 'frequency' is a nubulous and undefined quantity.
>
> > Don't be ridiculous. Frequency and wavelength are both unambiguously
> > measurable.
>
> > Just because YOU don't understand what frequency of light means, and you
> > want to try to attach some inappropriate image to it so that it has some
> > meaning you understand, doesn't imply anything other than a shortcoming
> > in your own head.
>
> xxein:  Sorry to bust your bubble but we can only measure frequency
> according to some clock.  We infer a wavelenghth from that.

Not true. We can measure a wavelength directly, with no inference from
frequency at all.

[PD]

On Nov 28, 7:57 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc.) wrote:

> On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 16:22:20 -0600, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On 11/28/2011 2:45 PM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
>
> >>> It's not a definition. It is a relationship between two *measured*
> >>> properties of photons. This observational relationship is E=hf. Not a
> >>> definition.
>
> >> The corrrect equation is E = h(c+v)/lambda
>
> >> Photon 'frequency' is a nubulous and undefined quantity.
>
> >Don't be ridiculous. Frequency and wavelength are both unambiguously
> >measurable.
>
> Nobody has even associated a frequency with a stream of monochromatic
> photons except by inference that one exists as f = c/lambda....the wave
> arrival rate.

A frequency IS a rate. What else did you think it was?

But you don't need to know anything about signal speed or wavelength
to count a rate.

[eric gisse]

PD <thedrap...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:jb11vf$ma8$1...@speranza.aioe.org:

> On 11/28/2011 3:02 PM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
>
>>
>> Porat, Diaper is a professional nuisance....
>>
>> According to google, he has made 62700 posts to this NG.
>> http://www.scisite.info/PD.jpg
>
> Fascinating. You can't even use Google properly. Notice in your own
> image that the first four search returns are not posts by me at all.
> So what do you think those 62700 are search results of?

If Ralph were a little smarter he'd search your full name, or the email
address you've rather consistently used for awhile now, or something
other than a two letter search term in a language that has 26 characters
in its' alphabet.

>
>> He is obviously unemployed apart from being paid directly by
>> you-know-who to disrupt any criticism of their fake symbol of
>> intellectual superiority.
>
> Obviously your skills at assessing my employment are directly
> connected with your skills at using Google.
>
>

I cannot quantify the amounts of self delusion required to believe that
some mysterious force is paying you to discredit someone who posts...on
USENET.

I've always thought that if I were an evil overlord and that my fiercest
critics were relegated to nattering on USENET, then I have won so
handily that I could simply ignore them entirely.

[Y.Porat]

it seems that PD ddint understand correctly my question and that is
why he does t answer
so i will ask it more clearly:

MR PD
is hf according to your understanding
sort of a tap dropping 'drops of water'
ONE DROP PER SECOND ??
that is

while'' to drop'' means that it sort of 'pops of at ONCE ! WITH NO
TIME
ONLY AT THE BEGINNING OF THE SECOND..
AND THEN WE HAVE A LONG POSE
ALONG MOST OF THAT SECOND
AND THEN WHILE THAT SECOND IS
FINISHED
THEN ANOTHER SECOND IS COMING AND ANOTHER POP OF DROP IS DONE AS
BEFORE
ONLY AT HE BEGINNING OF THAT SECOND ??
iow words
nothing fluent all of it is done as the
musical 'staccato ' way ??

TIA
Y.Porat
------------------
etc etc ??!!


IT JST

[PD]

On 11/29/2011 3:57 AM, Y.Porat wrote:
> On Nov 28, 10:13 pm, "Y.Porat"<y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 28, 8:47 pm, PD<thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/28/2011 10:57 AM, Y.Porat wrote:
>>
>>>> --------------
>>>> i will remind you:
>>>> you was talking about a stream of photons !! in context of hf
>>
>>> hf does not describe a stream of photons.
>>
>>> The mass of a drop of water does not have much to do with the amount of
>>> water delivered by a hose, either.
>>
>> ----------------
>> so according to you
>> hf is sort of a dropping tap
>> that drops each second a drop energy hf ??
>> Y.Porat
>> ----------------------------
>
> it seems that PD ddint understand correctly my question and that is
> why he does t answer
> so i will ask it more clearly:
>
> MR PD
> is hf according to your understanding
> sort of a tap dropping 'drops of water'
> ONE DROP PER SECOND ??
> that is

I just answered that. The answer is NO.
The f in hf has NOTHING to do with the rate of emission of "drops", nor
does it imply one "drop" per second.

[Y.Porat]

--------------
PD you are not donr withme so easy
i am not a little child
so i will ask you in a different way :

why modern physics is talking about
; ''a single photon''' interfering with itself

WHAT IS THAT ''SINGLE PHOTON THAT THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT ??

how do they get it and how do the define it ??

you see
my criticism is not only personally against
it is about those things that you are parroting !!

TIA
Y.Porat
----------------------------

[PD]

A single photon is defined by its behavior not by a formula.

The same thing is true for electrons, by the way. They are defined by
their properties and their behaviors, not by a formula.

I hope you will agree that single electrons have certainly been isolated.

By the way, single electrons have been observed to interfere with
themselves in almost exactly the same way that photons have.

[Drostie]

On Nov 29, 4:45 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> PD you are not donr withme so easy
> i am not a little  child
> so i will  ask you in a different way :
>
> why modern physics is talking about
> ; ''a  single photon'''  interfering with itself
>
> WHAT IS THAT ''SINGLE PHOTON   THAT  THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT ??
>
> how do   they get it and how do the define it ??
>
> you see
> my criticism is not  only personally against
> it is about those things that you are parroting !!
>
> TIA
> Y.Porat
> ----------------------------

(a) I think, moving forward, you should disentangle your ego from this
discussion and humbly accept the role of student. A statement like "I
am not a little child" is very revealing because it shows that you
feel somehow *slighted*. But this is a discussion foremost about
helping you to understand observed physical facts. Don't connect your
ego with the facts that you know: because learning something new is an
opportunity, not an insult.

(b) The photon is a conceptual tool we use to understand a truly
massive number of different physics experiments. The basic idea is
this: "Light is made of 'atoms' or lumps in the sense that, if you
turn down the intensity of light far enough, the light comes in
discrete units of energy called photons. Each photon has an energy
related to its frequency by Planck's constant E = h f."

Planck derived this relation when he was studying perfect thermal
radiation -- what's known as "black-body radiation." Einstein
solidified its interpretation when he pointed out that it offered an
elegant explanation of the photoelectric effect -- for this discovery,
he was given a Nobel prize.

The modern picture goes very far beyond this. For example, discrete
energy 'bands' are the understood basis for the modern semiconductor
technology working in your computer, and atomic spectra -- the
discrete energy levels of atoms -- are today used to figure out how
fast distant galaxies are moving away from us. Excited atoms emit
photons of distinct frequencies and can only be excited by light at
the same frequency. It also explains, for example, why sunlight can
give you skin cancer while indoor light does not, and discrete
energies also come out in things like positron emission tomography --
PET scans, where it's actually very important that *two* photons are
emitted in *opposite* directions when a positron annihilates with an
electron. (You need two to emit a lot of energy while preserving
conservation of momentum.)

The full laws of electrons and photons -- the principles that allow
such *particles* to display *wavy* interference effects -- was worked
out by Feynman and Schwinger among others, and is called Quantum
Electrodynamics. For further understanding of the concept of photons,
I refer you to Feynman's New Zealand lectures, available here:

http://vega.org.uk/video/subseries/8

When we speak about single photons interfering with themselves, we are
speaking of interference effects which work even when you reduce the
photon bursts to clear one-at-a-time resolutions. Similar wavy
interference effects happen with electrons in what are called
"Aharanov-Bohm" rings, where an electron can either take path A or
path B to get to the other side: at some magnetic fields you see *no*
current due to the electron-waves interfering as they go down this
path, but raise the magnetic field more and you can see the current
double, too. You can get the same effects with the so-called "double-
slit experiment", even when the light-transport is reduced to one
photon emitted per second.

As he has said, the rate is very different from the frequency. The
frequency of light, you might know, corresponds to its color. So you
can have a very weak blue light: photons with a lot of "kick", but
coming very infrequently. Or you can have a very strong red light:
photons with much less "kick", but many more of them coming more
frequently.

I hope that all helps? Cheers.

== Drostie ==

[Y.Porat]

------------------------
gain your dirty evasion tricks !

sow what is heahaviour of a single photon

IS THE ONE THAT IS INTERFERING WITH ITSELF A SINGLE PHOTON (:-)

COMMON JOKER
how could you pop into my threads along years
and ''refute'' my definition of the RANGE
of the single photon

WHILE A CROOK LIKE YOU DIDNT KNOW
and could not tell THE DEFINITION OF WHAT IS CONSIDERED
'A SINGLE PHOTON ??!!!
so
I WILL HELP YOU in order to save time
(you are posing as if you are a teacher of physics .....)

a single photon in those above mentioned experiment is done as
followed :
they take a photon of *** hf energy**
and weaken its intensity less and less
untill it is almost vanishing

but listen carefully --- is is still
an photon with frequency *** f ** and energy hf
it cant be other wise !!

so please note that f there !!!

how about that ??
2
please do t boggle .....with single Electrons
because that in another ''Opera''

TIA
Y.Porat
------------------------------------------

[PD]

On 11/29/2011 11:59 AM, Y.Porat wrote:
> On Nov 29, 6:47 pm, PD<thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 11/29/2011 9:45 AM, Y.Porat wrote:

>>
>>>>> MR PD
>>>>> is hf according to your understanding
>>>>> sort of a tap dropping 'drops of water'
>>>>> ONE DROP PER SECOND ??
>>>>> that is
>>
>>>> I just answered that. The answer is NO.
>>>> The f in hf has NOTHING to do with the rate of emission of "drops", nor
>>>> does it imply one "drop" per second.
>>
>>

>>> --------------
>>> PD you are not donr withme so easy
>>> i am not a little child
>>> so i will ask you in a different way :
>>
>>> why modern physics is talking about
>>> ; ''a single photon''' interfering with itself
>>
>>> WHAT IS THAT ''SINGLE PHOTON THAT THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT ??
>>
>> A single photon is defined by its behavior not by a formula.
> ------------------------
> gain your dirty evasion tricks !
>
> sow what is heahaviour of a single photon
>
> IS THE ONE THAT IS INTERFERING WITH ITSELF A SINGLE PHOTON (:-)
>

The behavior of photons is a subject in itself and can't be all captured
in a single usenet post. If you'd like to get even a decent summary of
the behavior of photons, you will need to refer to a book -- the
behavior is that rich. If you'd like some references, I'd be happy to
make some recommendations.

As to interfering with itself -- I'll remind you that this behavior is
not unique to photons. This is true for *anything* that can be described
as a quantum field, and it has been tested with lots of things that fit
that description, including single photons, single electrons, single
protons, single atoms, single molecules, just to name a few. Why this
happens is not an explanation that should be limited to photons, because
it happens for ALL of them for the same reasons.

[Y.Porat]

--------------
thanks !
now please define mathematically by a formula --
the ''single photon''
so we can deal and discuss it
qualitatively and quantitatively !!

TIA
Y.Porat
-----------------------

[PD]

On 11/29/2011 12:38 PM, Y.Porat wrote:

> --------------
> thanks !
> now please define mathematically by a formula --
> the ''single photon''
> so we can deal and discuss it
> qualitatively and quantitatively !!
>
> TIA
> Y.Porat
> -----------------------

Photons are not defined by a formula. Photons are defined by their
properties and behaviors.

The formulas you refer to are relations between the properties of
photons, or formulas that model their behavior.

[Y.Porat]

---------------------
crook
i dont mind waht are the books you sending and running away from
answering simple questions
you spoke for years that my definition of the
minimal photon enegy i snot

E minimum = hf times n
while
0<n << 1.0000
--------------
and you slayed it is wrong !!
so if you saied it is wrong
if not this than
it means you had in mind another thing that is
the minimal photon energy
so what the hell is it ???
what gave you the right to open your mouth
against me and my findings::while you dint know
what is a single photon ??
2
if it is not hf or less
so what is it ??
3
you quotes that you and your gang
said that
E=hf is a single photn
if not that what is it now
IF YOU DONT KNOW WHAT IS A SINGLE PHOTON
JUST SAY
' I PD DON T KNOW rigth now WHAT IS A SINGLE PHOTON
THAT IS HOW A DECENT SCIENTIST WOLD BEHAVE
it is not such a big complicated secrete as a crook like you what to
obfuscate and evade discussion
it is not the secrets of the nucleus !!
it is common simple knowledge
i think that Drostie defined some of it it just above
--------------------------------
i am telling you that the common current definition of the single
photon energy is

hf
if i am wrong
prove that i am wrong !!!
dont hand wave like a pig !!

prove i am wrong by presenting hf as a single photon
show another definition

TIA
Y.Porat
----------------------
-------------------------


TIA
Y.Porat
-----------------------

[PD]

There is no minimum photon energy.

Light comes in chunks of energy, but there is no minimum size chunk.

The relationship between the amount of energy in a photon and the
property of a photon called its frequency is
E=hf
but f can be arbitrarily small and so E can be arbitrarily small as well.

> what gave you the right to open your mouth
> against me and my findings::while you dint know
> what is a single photon ??

I do know what a single photon is. To describe it takes quite a bit of
work. You say it is an easy question to answer, but it is not. If you
think it is, then this points out how little you know about photons.

> 2
> if it is not hf or less
> so what is it ??
> 3
> you quotes that you and your gang
> said that
> E=hf is a single photn

No, a formula is not a photon. What the formula describes is a
relationship between two properties of a single photon: its energy and
its frequency. But this formula is not a definition of a photon. If I
describe a cat as having a tail and whiskers, the cat is not defined as
a tail and whiskers.

> if not that what is it now
> IF YOU DONT KNOW WHAT IS A SINGLE PHOTON
> JUST SAY
> ' I PD DON T KNOW rigth now WHAT IS A SINGLE PHOTON
> THAT IS HOW A DECENT SCIENTIST WOLD BEHAVE
> it is not such a big complicated secrete as a crook like you what to
> obfuscate and evade discussion
> it is not the secrets of the nucleus !!
> it is common simple knowledge
> i think that Drostie defined some of it it just above
> --------------------------------
> i am telling you that the common current definition of the single
> photon energy is
>
> hf
> if i am wrong
> prove that i am wrong !!!

The proof is in material you decline to look at outside this newsgroup.

You want everything to be settled in this newsgroup. You want statements
to be proven or disproven on this newsgroup. You want it to be that if
you make a statement that is wrong, then it is proven to be wrong on
this newsgroup. Well, tough shit, Porat. It's not going to happen that way.

Scientific knowledge does not rest on argument and discussion. It
resides predominantly in material that is available outside this
newsgroup and will never appear in this newsgroup. I know you despise
this because you are lazy and don't want to be asked to look outside the
newsgroup, and so you whine that if it's not settled here on the
newsgroup then people are guilty of handwaving and obfuscation. It's
not. It is a REQUIREMENT that if you want to have a correct
understanding of things, you MUST also make use of resources and
materials outside this newsgroup. If you don't want to, then you won't
get it here either. Period. End of story.

[Y.Porat]

-------------------
(:-)

BTW
now we can see why i say
PD is a criminal against mankind !!
2
MR PD
can you disprove my formula for the **range** to find the
minimal photon Energy :

E minimum =hf times n
while

0< n <<< 1.0000
??
-------------------------------------
TIA
Y.Porat
-------------
and a question ONLY to the other decent readers !!:

what is the current definition of the single photon energy !!

(if there is no clear unequivocal definition for it
how can they speak about
'a single photon interfering with itself ??!!)
-------------------------
TIA
Y.Porat
-------------------------

[Drostie]

On Nov 29, 7:38 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:

> thanks !
> now please  define mathematically by a formula --
> the  ''single    photon''
> so  we can deal and discuss it
> qualitatively and quantitatively !!
>
> TIA
> Y.Porat
> -----------------------

Well, you've invited me to be a *mathematician*, and I hope that you
don't mind if I decline that offer broadly. I am a *physicist* and
photons are not a *theorem* or *formula* but, as I said before, they
are a **physical concept**.

Now it is true that I work all day with mathematics and describe
photons routinely with certain mathematics, but you have to be a
little cautious here. Depending on the *scientific theory* one uses,
the same concept -- photons -- may be represented by very different
mathematics. The only mathematical relation which you're guaranteed to
see in some way entering all forms is E = h f, one of the central
ideas expressed by the concept. You actually will see it more often as
E = ħ ω, where ħ is the reduced Planck constant.

So for example, my field is condensed matter physics. We would use
second-quantization theory, and describe a photon rather precisely
with a photon creation operator ↠satisfying the commutation relation
[â, â†] = 1 and appearing in the Hamiltonian by adding a term Ĥ₀ += ħ
ω ↠â.

If you wanted to press me for a specific formula for â†, I could also
provide that in the Dirac algebra: the photon mode forms a Hilbert
subspace spanned by vectors |0>, |1>, |2>, ... with the creation
operator given as:

↠= Σ √(n) |n><n−1|

And if you really were concerned about the case where that mode was
occupied by only a **single** photon, then the operator for that state
would be Ô = |1><1|.

On the other hand, in Feynman's quantum theory, which you may watch
more in the videos I've given, the photon is described as a
fundamental particle entering the Feynman diagrams. It has an action
principle if you really care to know, which I don't know off the top
of my head, but it would be something like S = ħ ω t log(λ/r) or so,
to properly account for the amplitude's exp(i ω t)/r dependence.

Planck and Einstein didn't have these, and just used, in Boltzmann's
theory, the notion of discrete levels plus the relation E = h f.
(Boltzmann's theory actually becomes much simpler when the entropy and
multiplicity are calculated with discrete-level systems.) That E = hf
relation, along with the momentum p = E/c, should be enough to define
a photon as a particle for your purposes, if you're not doing anything
too deeply quantum with it. Something like, say, a solar cell probably
doesn't require more than that.

But yeah, depending on the theory in which it appears, it will take
different mathematical forms. That's why physics is not identical to
mathematics. And so I'll have to decline your request for me to be a
mathematician and tell you exactly what mathematical formula embodies
the photon: from my perspective that's a question based on a
misunderstanding of my job. ^_^

== Drostie ==

[PD]

Yes, it's called the photoelectric effect. This experimental result is
incompatible with your formula.

If you don't know why this is so, then I suggest you read up on it.
Would you like a reference to decent material outside this newsgroup on
the photoelectric effect?

[Y.Porat]

-=================================------------------
no need for your long deviation from a simple question

you are surely a mathematician ...
while you say that while i stand out in the sun
what warms me
IS A CONCEPT !! (:-)
may be you are a philosopher !!

now to business
i calmed that the MINIMAL PHOTONS ENERGY
IS FOUND IN THE FOLLOWING RANGE :

E minimum =hf times n
while
0 < n <<<<1.0000

my simple question is
can you refute it ??

TIA
Y.Porat
---------------------

[PD]

On 11/29/2011 2:00 PM, Y.Porat wrote:

>
> -=================================------------------
> no need for your long deviation from a simple question
>
> you are surely a mathematician ...
> while you say that while i stand out in the sun
> what warms me
> IS A CONCEPT !! (:-)
> may be you are a philosopher !!
>
> now to business
> i calmed that the MINIMAL PHOTONS ENERGY
> IS FOUND IN THE FOLLOWING RANGE :
>
> E minimum =hf times n
> while
> 0< n<<<<1.0000
>
> my simple question is
> can you refute it ??

The refutation is in experimental tests that show that this cannot be.
Would you like some external references to experimental work that shows
this?

[Y.Porat]

--------------
nasty pig !!
we can prove that
while you light a photoelectric cell
by a led torch
**for less than a second**
and thats enough
to prove my above formula !!
electrons are emitted during less than a second if lighted less than
a second !!
2
hf is ***one second defined **
got it pig ??
do you know why ??
because f IS ONE SECOND DEFINED !!
if so than hf is as well one second defined !!

3
even you pig
indicated that it is long known that
energy of photons can be emitted
in less than one second
while
hf is ONE SECOND DEFINED !!!!
because f is one second defined !!
go tit pig ??

and what is did is just formulated it
does not matter if it is by electron detection
or by oher ways to detect any
emission of energy !!

so it is dealing with
PHOTON ENERGY (ENERGY)
NOT YET WITH SINGLE PHOTONS
got it pig !!
if you say photoelectric refute it

i did an experiment exactly with
photoelectric cell !!
and saw that electrons are emitted
linearly with time of photon emission
(time duration) of less than a second !!
!!
while you pig was only hand waved !!!
if you say you refute me THE BURDEN OF PROVE IS ON YOU !! not
on me
**PROVE** NOT HAND WAVING OF A PROFESSIONAL LIER !!


2
i here by cal the other decent readers
to tell us what is the definition of a single e photon
that is used by the
'single photon interfering with itself
experiment
after all QM can not say that
a single phootn is interfering with itself
without defining what is a single photon!
does anyone need to be a genius in order to understand it !!

(it is not me that said that a single photon is interfering with
itself--
it is QM which said it
so what about they are talking there ??

and now i am going to sleep ...too late .
for me
see you tomorrow
TIA
Y.Porat
--------------


--------------------------


TIA
Y.Porat
-----------------------

[PD]

On 11/29/2011 2:34 PM, Y.Porat wrote:
> On Nov 29, 9:55 pm, PD<thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>
>>> BTW
>>> now we can see why i say
>>> PD is a criminal against mankind !!
>>> 2
>>> MR PD
>>> can you disprove my formula for the **range** to find the
>>> minimal photon Energy :
>>
>>> E minimum =hf times n
>>> while
>>
>>> 0< n<<< 1.0000
>>> ??
>>
>> Yes, it's called the photoelectric effect. This experimental result is
>> incompatible with your formula.
>>
>> If you don't know why this is so, then I suggest you read up on it.
>> Would you like a reference to decent material outside this newsgroup on
>> the photoelectric effect?
>>

>

> --------------
> nasty pig !!
> we can prove that
> while you light a photoelectric cell
> by a led torch
> **for less than a second**
> and thats enough
> to prove my above formula !!
> electrons are emitted during less than a second if lighted less than
> a second !!

Once again, Porat, you confuse f with emission frequency. To you hf
means that you can't get more than one photon a second. This is why I
suggest that you read an outside source about the photoelectric effect
and how the discovery of photons came out of that, and how it is that
E=hf describes something about the photons that account for the
photoelectric effect.

It's clear you think the photoelectric effect is incompatible with E=hf.
This makes it clear that you understanding neither photons nor E=hf nor
the photoelectric effect.

Some outside background reading is recommended. Would you like a
recommendation for good instructional references?

Bullshit, Porat. Physics is not about arguments and convincing, and this
newsgroup does not have as its purpose the disproving the statements of
cranks and idiots, and NO ONE owns the burden of proof of anything to
you. There is ample material OUTSIDE this newsgroup that can provide you
with all the information you need to see why your ideas are wrong and
what E=hf really means. I'd be happy to use this newsgroup to point you
to some of those outside materials.

[Henry Wilson DSc.]

On Tue, 29 Nov 2011 08:43:39 -0800 (PST), Drostie <chris....@gmail.com>
wrote:

Ahem! Light does not have a defineable 'frequency'. Nobody has ever measured
such a quantity. (frequency combs claim to beat microwaves with light but
there are other interpretations)
Light has a measurable wavelength and because it travels at c wrt its
source, there is an inference that its 'wavecrests' arrive at a particular
rate.

Your equation E = h.nu, is meaningless. I challenge you to define the
'frequency' of a single photon.

The correct equation is E = h.c/lambda ..or more
correctly....h(c+v)/lambda....where c+v is the speed of the light wrt the
observer.

As a newbie you probably don't realise that much of what you say is
regularly discussed here.

>== Drostie ==

[PD]

Falsity #1

> Nobody has ever measured
> such a quantity.

Falsity #2

> (frequency combs claim to beat microwaves with light but
> there are other interpretations)

Vague, toothless allegation #1

> Light has a measurable wavelength and because it travels at c wrt its
> source, there is an inference that its 'wavecrests' arrive at a particular
> rate.

As well as an independently measurable frequency, which is precisely
what that rate is.

>
> Your equation E = h.nu, is meaningless.

Falsity #3.

> I challenge you to define the
> 'frequency' of a single photon.

Uncompelling whine #1.

>
> The correct equation is E = h.c/lambda ..or more
> correctly....h(c+v)/lambda....where c+v is the speed of the light wrt the
> observer.

Falsity #4.

[Henry Wilson DSc.]

On Tue, 29 Nov 2011 11:47:34 -0800 (PST), Drostie <chris....@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Nov 29, 7:38 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> thanks !
>> now please  define mathematically by a formula --
>> the  ''single    photon''
>> so  we can deal and discuss it
>> qualitatively and quantitatively !!
>>
>> TIA
>> Y.Porat
>> -----------------------
>
>Well, you've invited me to be a *mathematician*, and I hope that you
>don't mind if I decline that offer broadly. I am a *physicist* and
>photons are not a *theorem* or *formula* but, as I said before, they
>are a **physical concept**.
>
>Now it is true that I work all day with mathematics and describe
>photons routinely with certain mathematics, but you have to be a
>little cautious here. Depending on the *scientific theory* one uses,
>the same concept -- photons -- may be represented by very different
>mathematics. The only mathematical relation which you're guaranteed to
>see in some way entering all forms is E = h f, one of the central
>ideas expressed by the concept. You actually will see it more often as

>E = ? ?, where ? is the reduced Planck constant.

You still have to define 'f'.

>So for example, my field is condensed matter physics. We would use
>second-quantization theory, and describe a photon rather precisely
>with a photon creation operator ↠satisfying the commutation relation

>[â, â†] = 1 and appearing in the Hamiltonian by adding a term ?? += ?
>? ↠â.

>
>If you wanted to press me for a specific formula for â†, I could also
>provide that in the Dirac algebra: the photon mode forms a Hilbert
>subspace spanned by vectors |0>, |1>, |2>, ... with the creation
>operator given as:
>

>↠= ? ?(n) |n><n?1|

>
>And if you really were concerned about the case where that mode was
>occupied by only a **single** photon, then the operator for that state
>would be Ô = |1><1|.
>
>On the other hand, in Feynman's quantum theory, which you may watch
>more in the videos I've given, the photon is described as a
>fundamental particle entering the Feynman diagrams. It has an action
>principle if you really care to know, which I don't know off the top

>of my head, but it would be something like S = ? ? t log(?/r) or so,
>to properly account for the amplitude's exp(i ? t)/r dependence.

The trouble with such mathematical models is that they become totally
unrelated to physical reality and are totally useless.

>Planck and Einstein didn't have these, and just used, in Boltzmann's
>theory, the notion of discrete levels plus the relation E = h f.
>(Boltzmann's theory actually becomes much simpler when the entropy and
>multiplicity are calculated with discrete-level systems.) That E = hf
>relation, along with the momentum p = E/c, should be enough to define
>a photon as a particle for your purposes, if you're not doing anything
>too deeply quantum with it. Something like, say, a solar cell probably
>doesn't require more than that.

The basic problem is that physics cannot progress further until the physics
of a 'field' is forthcoming.

We have very mathematical explanations but not physical ones.
What is the PHYSICAL explanation of what is happening around a bar magnet?
What makes space carrying a field different from space devoid of fields?

No matter how complex your mathematics, they will not answer these
questions.

>But yeah, depending on the theory in which it appears, it will take
>different mathematical forms. That's why physics is not identical to
>mathematics. And so I'll have to decline your request for me to be a
>mathematician and tell you exactly what mathematical formula embodies
>the photon: from my perspective that's a question based on a
>misunderstanding of my job. ^_^

Here is my preferred PHYSICAL model of a photon in transit. It is an
oscillating lump of 'the stuff that fields are made of'. Its intrinsic
oscillation frequency is not related to the bogus frequency inferred by the
equation nu = c/lambda, which as I already pointed out is nothing more that
'wavecrest arrival rate'. (whatever 'wavecrest' might imply).
Another quite feasible model is that a photon is a rapidly spinning pair of
charges.
For reasons as yet unknown, a photon is initially emitted at speed c wrt its
source, in a direction that is equally not understood. It moves at c+v wrt
an observer moving at c wrt the source.

It is also not inconceivable that in the vicinity of large masses, there
exists a kind of local aether, in which Maxwell's equation tends to take
over and determine light speed. Classical wave theory might also be relevant
here.



>== Drostie ==

[Androcles]

"Henry Wilson DSc." <..@..> wrote in message
news:3oiad75s5p2sncuuv...@4ax.com...

|
| Ahem! Light does not have a defineable 'frequency'.

What would a moron who finds mechanics impossible know?
Button your lip, Wilson; photons have frequency, you ignorant crank.

[Drostie]

On Nov 29, 9:00 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
> no need for your long deviation from a simple question

It was needed for the precise reason that you were asking for a
mathematical definition of a physical concept. I gave you the closest
thing I can to that, which is how I would apply it mathematically in
practice.

> while you say that while i stand out in the sun
> what warms me
> IS A CONCEPT !!  (:-)
> may be you are a philosopher !!

Maybe. I'm making a fine distinction between the phenomena of light on
the one hand, and the concept of photons on the other.

I'm actually doing this for a very deliberate reason: even if you deny
photons, you would have to deal with the fact that photons are a very
useful concept, and to really make a scientific contribution you'd
have to provide a *replacement concept* which is *more useful* to
describe those same phenomena. Photons are a concept. If you want to
replace them, then you will need to somehow have something which works
-- not for you, but for *us* -- to make the known experiments much
clearer. Ideas spread in science by chain reaction: I have an idea
which is so good that, on average, I can convince (1 + k) other
physicists to use it; they on average convince (1 + k) more, and so
on, and so on, growing like (1 + k)^n until its limitations are known.

> now to  business
> i calmed  that the MINIMAL PHOTONS ENERGY
> IS FOUND IN THE FOLLOWING RANGE :
>
> E minimum =hf times  n
> while
> 0 <  n <<<<1.0000
>
> my simple question  is
> can you refute it ??

Oh, yes. Sure. That's actually pretty easy.

First off, you're not extending outside of photons, so let's be very
clear on what you're doing by defining Y as hn. Then your theory
proposes that really E = Y f, rather than E = h f -- in other words,
what you are saying is that h is a different number from what we have
measured it to be. But we've got very good measurements of h, and
you've provided no reason to think that they're systematically wrong.

Actually, Planck's original paper computes h purely from an attempt to
fit his formula to the Sun's observed radiation spectrum, and gets it
to several significant figures, so yes, the size of the "lumps"
matters in practice. Actually, the size of ħ matters rather globally.
For example, ± ħ/2 appears as the spin angular momentum of an electron
and some sort of random variation in ħ would actually be noticed in a
Stern-Gerlach experiment as a significant "smudging" of the dots in
such an experiment. And ħ also appears in the Heisenberg uncertainty
relations.

I should add that the "n" doesn't really help, as far as I can tell,
because photons appear also in the Standard Model of Particle Physics,
where they act as virtual particles to mediate the electromagnetic
force in general. The important number for photons is therefore the
**fine structure constant**, which The Wiki tells me is known to
within one part in three billion.

== Drostie ==

[Henry Wilson DSc.]

It should be obvious. Name someone who has.

>> (frequency combs claim to beat microwaves with light but
>> there are other interpretations)
>
>Vague, toothless allegation #1

They beat 'wavelengths' not frequencies.

>> Light has a measurable wavelength and because it travels at c wrt its
>> source, there is an inference that its 'wavecrests' arrive at a particular
>> rate.
>
>As well as an independently measurable frequency, which is precisely
>what that rate is.

You are obviously thinking of radio waves, which are not the subject under
discussion.

>> Your equation E = h.nu, is meaningless.
>
>Falsity #3.
>
>> I challenge you to define the
>> 'frequency' of a single photon.
>
>Uncompelling whine #1.

You can't do it.

[PD]

On 11/29/2011 3:52 PM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:

>
> Here is my preferred PHYSICAL model of a photon in transit. It is an
> oscillating lump of 'the stuff that fields are made of'. Its intrinsic
> oscillation frequency is not related to the bogus frequency inferred by the
> equation nu = c/lambda, which as I already pointed out is nothing more that
> 'wavecrest arrival rate'. (whatever 'wavecrest' might imply).
> Another quite feasible model is that a photon is a rapidly spinning pair of
> charges.
> For reasons as yet unknown, a photon is initially emitted at speed c wrt its
> source, in a direction that is equally not understood. It moves at c+v wrt
> an observer moving at c wrt the source.
>
> It is also not inconceivable that in the vicinity of large masses, there
> exists a kind of local aether, in which Maxwell's equation tends to take
> over and determine light speed. Classical wave theory might also be relevant
> here.

Just a word of warning here. Henry Wilson, DSc., who is neither a Henry
nor a Wilson and certainly not a DSc., is Ralph Rabbidge, a single
retiree in Australia whose theme in life appears to be centered more
around baiting than in fidelity to the truth, and so he is prone to say
any little thing that enters into his head.

Ralph has freely acknowledged that he has no interest in reading
anything about physics, about particles, or about relativity, despite
his proclivity to post to newsgroups about all three. He would find that
less than fun.

And so while it is true that he himself may not have any idea what
frequency of a photon means or what a photon is, he translates that into
a statement that NOBODY has any idea what the frequency of a photon
means or what a photon is. This is to attempt to bait anyone he dandles
this in front of to attempt to explain it to him. Not that he's at all
interested -- he just wants to get you to do some work to try.

Just to underscore this point, it is but a matter of time before he
declares that frequency is an empty concept and should be replaced with
the term "Wilson wavecrest arrival rate" which to him is something
completely different -- primarily because it has the name Wilson in it.

[Henry Wilson DSc.]

On Tue, 29 Nov 2011 22:02:20 -0000, "Androcles"

How would you describe it then?

[Henry Wilson DSc.]

Diaper, if you had any scientific ability at all.... which off course you
haven't....you would be able to understand what the equation 'nu = c/lambda'
physically implied.

[PD]

It implies a relationship between *measured* nu and *measured* lambda.
This is in the same vein as the relationship that holds for traveling
waves in general, among its *measured* frequency f, *measured*
wavelength l, and *measured* propagation speed v: v = fl.

Trying to peer into the dark and echoing cavity between your ears, I'll
venture the guess that you thought this relationship was some kind of
*definition* of frequency or the sole recipe for finding it. There is,
of course, no accounting for the boneheaded things you believe, which
stem directly from your unwillingness to read anything on the subject.
Much better to just make it up as you go along, isn't it? OPINING is so
much more gratifying than learning, isn't it?

[Henry Wilson DSc.]

Diaper, I would have a better chance of teaching physics to Andro's pet
chimp than to you. You just don't have what it takes.

[PD]

You'd have a better chance of teaching physics if you knew any, rather
than just making it up as you went along. Guess what helps in that regard?

[Androcles]

"Henry Wilson DSc." <..@..> wrote in message

news:reqad755v6029rolj...@4ax.com...

Period, Daisy, period. It can't be changed, it is the same in all frames
of reference because time is the same in all frames of reference.
If you fire missiles with a frequency of one a second then the period is
a second. Running toward or away from the gun changes the apparent
frequency of the missiles but never changes the period.

"It would be very unusual to try to measure a moving object. I don't
know of any instances where it is done. Any sane person would stop the
bloody thing then measure it." -- Wilson
news:20090921091548.0...@gmail.com

Look, I've stopped the bloody thing: be sane and measure it!
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Wave/Relative.gif

[Henry Wilson DSc.]

On Wed, 30 Nov 2011 00:18:13 -0000, "Androcles"

<Headm...@Hogwarts.physics.November.2011> wrote:

>
>"Henry Wilson DSc." <..@..> wrote in message
>news:reqad755v6029rolj...@4ax.com...
>| On Tue, 29 Nov 2011 22:02:20 -0000, "Androcles"
>| <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics.November.2011> wrote:
>|
>| >
>| >"Henry Wilson DSc." <..@..> wrote in message
>| >news:3oiad75s5p2sncuuv...@4ax.com...
>| >|
>| >| Ahem! Light does not have a defineable 'frequency'.
>| >
>| >What would a moron who finds mechanics impossible know?
>| >Button your lip, Wilson; photons have frequency, you ignorant crank.
>|
>| How would you describe it then?
>|
>Period, Daisy, period. It can't be changed, it is the same in all frames
>of reference because time is the same in all frames of reference.

So a photon has a period does it. What part of the photon is oscillating?

>If you fire missiles with a frequency of one a second then the period is
>a second. Running toward or away from the gun changes the apparent
>frequency of the missiles but never changes the period.
>
>"It would be very unusual to try to measure a moving object. I don't
>know of any instances where it is done. Any sane person would stop the
>bloody thing then measure it." -- Wilson
> news:20090921091548.0...@gmail.com
>
>Look, I've stopped the bloody thing: be sane and measure it!
> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Wave/Relative.gif

I can't see any photons there.
>
>
>
>
>

[Androcles]

"Henry Wilson DSc." <..@..> wrote in message

news:0j0bd71pvm2nrn6kp...@4ax.com...

| On Wed, 30 Nov 2011 00:18:13 -0000, "Androcles"
| <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics.November.2011> wrote:
|
| >
| >"Henry Wilson DSc." <..@..> wrote in message
| >news:reqad755v6029rolj...@4ax.com...
| >| On Tue, 29 Nov 2011 22:02:20 -0000, "Androcles"
| >| <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics.November.2011> wrote:
| >|
| >| >
| >| >"Henry Wilson DSc." <..@..> wrote in message
| >| >news:3oiad75s5p2sncuuv...@4ax.com...
| >| >|
| >| >| Ahem! Light does not have a defineable 'frequency'.
| >| >
| >| >What would a moron who finds mechanics impossible know?
| >| >Button your lip, Wilson; photons have frequency, you ignorant crank.
| >|
| >| How would you describe it then?
| >|
| >Period, Daisy, period. It can't be changed, it is the same in all frames
| >of reference because time is the same in all frames of reference.
|
| So a photon has a period does it. What part of the photon is oscillating?

The magnetic and electric fields. That's what a photon is.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/AC/photon.gif

| >If you fire missiles with a frequency of one a second then the period is
| >a second. Running toward or away from the gun changes the apparent
| >frequency of the missiles but never changes the period.
| >
| >"It would be very unusual to try to measure a moving object. I don't
| >know of any instances where it is done. Any sane person would stop the
| >bloody thing then measure it." -- Wilson
| > news:20090921091548.0...@gmail.com
| >
| >Look, I've stopped the bloody thing: be sane and measure it!
| > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Wave/Relative.gif
|
| I can't see any photons there.

The photon is the field strength indicated by the sinusoid where the red
pointer is. One cannot draw pictures of energy, Daisy, one can only draw
mathematical models. You can't even draw L=R, but I can.

[Y.Porat]

On Nov 29, 10:47 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11/29/2011 2:34 PM, Y.Porat wrote:
> >
> > On Nov 29, 9:55 pm, PD<thedraperfam...@gmail.com>  wrote:
>
> >>> BTW
> >>> now we can see why  i say
> >>> PD is a criminal against  mankind !!
> >>> 2
> >>> MR PD
> >>> can you disprove my formula for the     **range** to  find the
> >>> minimal   photon Energy :

> ====================================

> >>> E minimum  =hf times n
> >>> while
>
> >>> 0<    n<<<    1.0000

======================================

>
> >> Yes, it's called the photoelectric effect. This experimental result is
> >> incompatible with your formula.
>
> >> If you don't know why this is so, then I suggest you read up on it.
> >> Would you like a reference to decent material outside this newsgroup on
> >> the photoelectric effect?
>
> > --------------
> > nasty pig !!
> > we can prove that
> > while you light a photoelectric cell
> > by a led torch
> > **for less than a second**
> > and thats enough
> > to  prove  my above  formula !!
> > electrons are emitted during less than a second  if lighted less than
> > a second !!
>
> Once again, Porat, you confuse f with emission frequency. To you hf
> means that you can't get more than one photon a second.

-------------------
HERE WE SEE LITTLE JOSEF GOEBBELS
WITH ALL HIS SPLENDOR !!
IE
TELL THE '''MOBS'' THE BIGGEST LIE YOU CAN
AND ONLY THEN YOU HAVE A CHANCE
TO GET YOUR LIE BETTER !!
AND NOW YOU CAN UNDERSTAND WHY I SAY THAT
PD
IS A CRIMINAL AGAIST MANKIND !!!

DDI I EEVR SAID THAT WE CANT GET MORE THAN ONE PHOTON PER SECOND ??

IS THERE A BIGGER LIE THAN A NASTY CROOK CAN SAY ??
ISAID AGAIN AND AGAIN
AND MY FORMULOA SAY QUITE THE OPPOSITE !!
QUITE THE OPPOSITE !!GOT IT SHALESS PIG LIER ??
I SAY AGAIN AND AGAIN
THAT IN ONE SECOND A HUGE NUMBER OF SINGLE PHOTONS IS EMITTED
MY ABOVE FORMULA TELLS IT AS WELL
ie
if photons ENERGY can be Emitted in less than a second
IT MEANS THAT IN ONE SECOND AND MORE
THAN ONE SECOND
MUCH MORE SINGLE PHOOTNS energy CAN BE EMITTED THAT IN LESS THAN
ONE SECOND !!

AND MY FORMULA **AND EXPERIMENT **SAY THAT
EVEN IN EVEN IN ***LESS THAN A SECOND
A HUGE NUMBER OF SINGLE PHOTONS CAN BE EMITTED!!
---------------------

This is why I
> suggest that you read an outside source about the photoelectric effect
> and how the discovery of photons came out of that, and how it is that
> E=hf describes something about the photons that account for the
> photoelectric effect.

----------------------
nasty crook
ddi i ever say something different ??

>
> It's clear you think the photoelectric effect is incompatible with E=hf.

------------
nasty lier !!

> This makes it clear that you understanding neither photons nor E=hf nor
> the photoelectric effect.

nast pig lier !!
quite the opposite
i used the photoelectric experiment
to show that phootonenergy is emitted during less than one second !!
thatis not in contradiction to
E=hf
THAT IS AN *** EXPANSION***
OF E=hf
TO THE RANGE LESS THAN ONE SECOND
THAT NO ONE EVER BEFORE ME FORMULATED IT !!

-------------------------

>
> Some outside background reading is recommended. Would you like a
> recommendation for good instructional references?

>-----------------
YES PIG
THAT IS EXACTLY WAHT I ASKED YOU:

BRING LINKS FOR YOU LIES
DON T HAND WAVE !!

YOUR (only) HAND WAVING
IS NOT SCIENCE
NOR DECENT HUMAN BEHAVIOR !!!

TIA
Y.Porat
-----------------------

NOT ABOUT ARGUMENTS BY EXPERIMENTAL DATA ??
SO WHAT IS IT
PERSONAL POLITICS AND SHAMELESS CHEATING ??
------------

> newsgroup does not have as its purpose the disproving the statements of
> cranks and idiots, and NO ONE owns the burden of proof of anything to
> you. There is ample material OUTSIDE this newsgroup that can provide you
> with all the information you need to see why your ideas are wrong and
> what E=hf really means. I'd be happy to use this newsgroup to point you
> to some of those outside materials.

>---------------------
E=hf
is the photon energy thatis eitted during one second

got it Josef ??

just as simple as that
f isone second defined
AND THST IS WHY hf IS THEENERGY THAT IS EMITTED DURING ONE SECOND!!
JUST AS SIMPLE AS THAT
NO NEED TO CHEAT ABOUT IT
NOT ALL PEOPLE HERE ARE IDIOT CROOKS LIKE YOU !!
----------------------

[Y.Porat]

---------------------
BTW
a remark to thre decent readers
the anonymous

Doesrtie

IS IN NEW IN THE NET FOR
==GUESS HOW LONG!!
unbelievable impertinence

for l less than a few days !!
may be even less !!1
you cn see it in his profile of
especially recruited gangsters
!!!
(:-)
ATB
Y.Porat
------------------

[Y.Porat]

On Nov 27, 12:34 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Paul   Draper is a  possible criminal against Mankind !!
>
> in order to test and  prove it
> i will start with a simple question to PD
>
> (and my verdict depends on his answer !!)
>
> Mr PD
> what is your definition  for the :-
>
> Energy    of   the**single*** photon  ??
>
> TIA
> Y.Porat
> ---------------------

hre is just an occasional example
about 'single phootns'
i found in Wiki
--------------------------
quote

A low-intensity double-slit experiment was first performed by Taylor
in 1909,[16] by reducing the level of incident light until photon
emission/absorption events were mostly nonoverlapping. The appearance
of interference built up from individual photons could be explained by
understanding that a single photon has its own wavefront that passes
through both slits, and that the single photon will show up on the
detector screen according to the net probability values resulting from
the co-incidence of the two probability waves coming by way of the two
slits.[17] Note that it is not the probabilities of photons appearing
at various points along the detection screen that add or cancel, but
the amplitudes. If there is a cancellation of waves at some point,
that does not mean that a photon disappears; it only means that the
probability of a photon's appearing at that point will decrease, and
the probability that it will appear somewhere else increases.

end of quote !!

ATB
Y.Porat
--------------------

[Timo Nieminen]

On Nov 30, 3:32 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 29, 10:47 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> AND MY FORMULA  **AND EXPERIMENT **SAY THAT
> EVEN IN  EVEN IN  ***LESS THAN A SECOND
> A HUGE  NUMBER OF SINGLE  PHOTONS CAN BE EMITTED!!

So does conventional physics, with photons of energy E=hf. So this
experiment isn't useful for distinguishing between the E=hf of
conventional physics, and your E=nhf.

However, other experiments (the photoelectric effect, the blackbody
spectrum) require E=hf, not E=nh with n>>1.

> > This makes it clear that you understanding neither photons nor E=hf nor
> > the photoelectric effect.
>
> nast pig lier !!
> quite the  opposite
> i used the photoelectric experiment
> to  show that  phootonenergy is emitted during less than one second !!
> thatis not in contradiction to
> E=hf

No, it isn't in contradiction to E=hf at all. What E=hf means is that,
given an electromagnetic wave of frequency f, energy is put into the
wave, or taken out of the wave, by matter, in chunks of E=hf.
Theoretically, instantly, and to our best experimental measurement,
instantly.

Oh, and using a photocell doesn't mean you're observing the
"photoelectric effect". You should go and read about Millikan's Nobel
prize.

> E=hf
> is the  photon energy  thatis eitted during one second
>
> got it Josef ??
>
> just as simple   as that
> f isone second defined
> AND THST IS WHY hf IS THEENERGY THAT IS EMITTED DURING ONE SECOND!!
> JUST AS SIMPLE AS THAT

No, not at all. For example, take a real laser in a real lab, say,
1070nm. Turn it on, and measure the power output. 4mW we measure.
That's 4mJ per second. That's a LOT more than hf per second. We can
even turn the power down, and get 2mW. That's a different amount of
energy per second. What does hf have to do with that? Nothing!

[Y.Porat]

On Nov 30, 9:46 am, Timo Nieminen <t...@physics.uq.edu.au> wrote:
> On Nov 30, 3:32 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 29, 10:47 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > AND MY FORMULA  **AND EXPERIMENT **SAY THAT
> > EVEN IN  EVEN IN  ***LESS THAN A SECOND
> > A HUGE  NUMBER OF SINGLE  PHOTONS CAN BE EMITTED!!
>
> So does conventional physics, with photons of energy E=hf. So this
> experiment isn't useful for distinguishing between the E=hf of
> conventional physics, and your E=nhf.

> ---------------------------------

is hf one second defined or not ?

TIA
Y.Porat
------------------------------
=======================================

[Henry Wilson DSc.]

On Wed, 30 Nov 2011 01:30:28 -0000, "Androcles"

<Headm...@Hogwarts.physics.November.2011> wrote:

>
>"Henry Wilson DSc." <..@..> wrote in message
>news:0j0bd71pvm2nrn6kp...@4ax.com...
>| On Wed, 30 Nov 2011 00:18:13 -0000, "Androcles"

>| >Period, Daisy, period. It can't be changed, it is the same in all frames
>| >of reference because time is the same in all frames of reference.
>|
>| So a photon has a period does it. What part of the photon is oscillating?
>
>
>The magnetic and electric fields. That's what a photon is.
> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/AC/photon.gif

That looks like some kind of circus act.....


......but actually you are quite close there.
Here is the electric field of a photon.

www.scisite.info/e-field.exe

>| >"It would be very unusual to try to measure a moving object. I don't
>| >know of any instances where it is done. Any sane person would stop the
>| >bloody thing then measure it." -- Wilson
>| > news:20090921091548.0...@gmail.com
>| >
>| >Look, I've stopped the bloody thing: be sane and measure it!
>| > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Wave/Relative.gif
>|
>| I can't see any photons there.
>
>The photon is the field strength indicated by the sinusoid where the red
>pointer is. One cannot draw pictures of energy, Daisy, one can only draw
>mathematical models. You can't even draw L=R, but I can.

Yes yes yes....we know all about that. According to you, the BBC is still
broadcasting the same photon it did in 1912....and a very long photon it is.

[Androcles]

"Henry Wilson DSc." <..@..> wrote in message

news:smtbd7pal6qmnila6...@4ax.com...

| On Wed, 30 Nov 2011 01:30:28 -0000, "Androcles"
| <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics.November.2011> wrote:
|
| >
| >"Henry Wilson DSc." <..@..> wrote in message
| >news:0j0bd71pvm2nrn6kp...@4ax.com...
| >| On Wed, 30 Nov 2011 00:18:13 -0000, "Androcles"
|
| >| >Period, Daisy, period. It can't be changed, it is the same in all
frames
| >| >of reference because time is the same in all frames of reference.
| >|
| >| So a photon has a period does it. What part of the photon is
oscillating?
| >
| >
| >The magnetic and electric fields. That's what a photon is.
| > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/AC/photon.gif
|
| That looks like some kind of circus act.....
|
|
| ......but actually you are quite close there.
| Here is the electric field of a photon.
|
| www.scisite.info/e-field.exe
|
|

I DON'T RUN UNCERTIFICATED .EXEs

|
| >| >"It would be very unusual to try to measure a moving object. I don't
| >| >know of any instances where it is done. Any sane person would stop the
| >| >bloody thing then measure it." -- Wilson
| >| > news:20090921091548.0...@gmail.com
| >| >
| >| >Look, I've stopped the bloody thing: be sane and measure it!
| >| > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Wave/Relative.gif
| >|
| >| I can't see any photons there.
| >
| >The photon is the field strength indicated by the sinusoid where the red
| >pointer is. One cannot draw pictures of energy, Daisy, one can only draw
| >mathematical models. You can't even draw L=R, but I can.
|
| Yes yes yes....we know all about that. According to you, the BBC is still
| broadcasting the same photon it did in 1912....and a very long photon it
is.
|

Long time or long position? Distance and duration have different units,
Daisy.

[Timo Nieminen]

On Nov 30, 6:46 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 30, 9:46 am, Timo Nieminen <t...@physics.uq.edu.au> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 30, 3:32 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 29, 10:47 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > AND MY FORMULA  **AND EXPERIMENT **SAY THAT
> > > EVEN IN  EVEN IN  ***LESS THAN A SECOND
> > > A HUGE  NUMBER OF SINGLE  PHOTONS CAN BE EMITTED!!
>
> > So does conventional physics, with photons of energy E=hf. So this
> > experiment isn't useful for distinguishing between the E=hf of
> > conventional physics, and your E=nhf.
> > ---------------------------------
>
> is hf one second defined or not ?

No.

As the example I gave you using cycles per hour instead of cycles per
second (i.e., hertz) should have made perfectly clear.

Why do you think E=hf is "one second defined"? Can you quote any
source that says this?

[Drostie]

> BTW
> a remark to thre  decent readers
> the anonymous
>
> Doesrtie
>
> IS IN  NEW IN THE NET FOR
> ==GUESS HOW LONG!!
> unbelievable impertinence
>
> for l less than a few days !!
> may  be even less !!1
> you cn see it in his profile of
> especially  recruited gangsters
>  !!!
> (:-)
> ATB
> Y.Porat
> ------------------

Look, this is what I was saying about disentangling egos. If you think
that I am "impertinent" then you really don't understand the ways in
which I'm trying to help you out. I don't blame you, but I want to
call you awake.

I'm trying to show you a path to self-betterment, which consists in
*humility*, *learning*, *change*, and becoming *better*. This requires
you to "wake up" from the path of solipsism.

Physics is a team sport. If you want to join us, feel free! We expect
a commitment to come to practice, to admit your faults, to work hard
on exercising the parts that aren't ready, to listen to being coached.
Don't expect to be the star player on the first day. Usually there
isn't a star player, and in the cases where there is, they're mostly
using great opportunities given to them by others. Look at Einstein's
1905 "miracle year" for example: what he really said in his three
amazing papers were, "Take Lorentz seriously -- the geometry he
describes is not self-contradictory! Take Boltzmann seriously --
atoms, if they exist, would make a real difference! Take Planck
seriously -- if light comes in discrete lumps, we can understand this
other effect too!" The entire foundations were provided to him, and he
merely explicated the powerful results of those foundations. ( Or take
Isaac Newton. He stole so many ideas from others that he had to
famously say, "If I have seen further, it's by standing on the
shoulders of giants." What you might not know is EVEN THAT, Newton
stole from others -- it's not an original metaphor. :-D )

The moment that you refer to your teammates as "gangsters" and
"criminals against Mankind" and "nasty lier" and "PIG" is the moment
that you have failed to join the team.

And if you follow that path out to infinity, you will be so consumed
with vanity that you will die without ever having lived.

== Drostie ==

[Y.Porat]

------------

no need for a source
ther is NEED FOR head on your shoulders
and a minimal integrity:

is f one second time dependent
please --just answer yes or no

(i ddint asked you about the
history of mankind !!!)

TIA
Y.Porat
------------------------------

[Y.Porat]

-------------------
i ddint ask you about the history of mankind
i ask you a simple question
and i dont need your preaching
btw
you said
'if you want to join us ''
**you** was joining me not vice versa

so 1

is f one second time dependent ??

2
how long are you on this ng ???

just short answers please

TIA
Y.Porat
-------------------------------------

[Drostie]

On Nov 29, 10:24 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc.) wrote:
> >(b) The photon is a conceptual tool we use to understand a truly
> >massive number of different physics experiments. The basic idea is
> >this: "Light is made of 'atoms' or lumps in the sense that, if you
> >turn down the intensity of light far enough, the light comes in
> >discrete units of energy called photons. Each photon has an energy
> >related to its frequency by Planck's constant E = h f."
>

> Ahem! Light does not have a defineable 'frequency'. Nobody has ever measured
> such a quantity. (frequency combs claim to beat microwaves with light but
> there are other interpretations)

> Light has a measurable wavelength and because it travels at c wrt its
> source, there is an inference that its 'wavecrests' arrive at a particular
> rate.
>

> Your equation E = h.nu, is meaningless. I challenge you to define the

> 'frequency' of a single photon.
>

> The correct equation is E = h.c/lambda ..or more
> correctly....h(c+v)/lambda....where c+v is the speed of the light wrt the
> observer.

I appreciate that you might happen to not like the time domain for
some reason, but you've given your own definition of frequency in
terms of things that you do happen to like, namely f = c / λ, pretty
simply. I measure, in my reference frame, some wavelength for some
light, and divide by the well-known speed of light in my reference
frame -- which is not c + v but just c. (Unless you really think that
I'm moving through the aether with some velocity -v, but then you
would have the strong problem that (a) experiments disagree and (b)
particle accelerators work.)

In any case, I believe I have risen to your challenge in terms of f =
c / λ, and I will only add that we happen to use the frequency domain
much more exclusively for radios, in which case I can give a similar
definition: "light of a frequency f is the light picked up by this
radio when it's tuned to frequency f."

> >I hope that all helps? Cheers.
>
> As a newbie you probably don't realise that much of what you say is
> regularly discussed here.

Perhaps. My commitment is to help people out. Perhaps, indeed, that
requires repeating things which are already regularly discussed. But I
guess my response is, so what? It's my time spent repeating it, after
all. If it can help and I have the time to write it, why not?

[Drostie]

On Nov 30, 12:20 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:

> i ddint ask you about  the history of mankind

I didn't tell you about it, either.

> i ask you a simple question

No, you didn't. But even if you did, what you are saying doesn't
follow. "What is the history of mankind?" is a very simple question
which cannot be answered without giving the history of mankind. A
simple question can still have a complicated answer.

> and i dont need your preaching
> btw

You've been calling the same people who you want to help you 'pigs'
and 'liers' and 'criminals against Mankind.'

I am no psychoanalyst, and honest human advice is all I can give. My
honest human advice is that anyone who acts in the above way needs
some honest human advice. So I provide it.

> you said
> 'if you want to join us ''
> **you** was joining me not vice versa

To the extent that this is an invitation extended to me to **stop**
doing physics and instead take up some other profession, I must
respectfully decline. (To the extent that this is not such an
invitation, I think that it doesn't actually make sense in the context
of the discussion. I came to sci.physics to talk *physics*, not to
join some personality cult of Y.Porat or anything of the sort. Like, I
don't know precisely what you mean, but if your phrase "joining me"
above means something other than "talking with me about physics", I
must respectfully decline.)

If you want to join the team-sport of physics, you will have to accept
the humble role of student and commit to learning, exercising, and
bettering yourself. You have not yet, in my opinion, shown the needed
reserve and calm compassion needed to join such a team endeavor.

>
> so 1
>
> is f one  second time dependent ??

I cannot understand the question as you have asked it: the repetition
of the nouns "f" and "one second" do not make sense to me. If you
asked if one second is time-dependent, the answer is "not as far as we
can tell" -- Hyperfine transitions between Cesium atoms do not seem to
have a variation over time (and if they did, we'd have to use a more
regular clock, perhaps pulsar-based, to observe it). If you asked me
if "f" is time dependent, then that depends on what f is. Presumably
in the present context it means "the frequency of light," and the
obvious answer would be also, "no: as far as we can tell when you
shine a laser from this side of the room to that side, the frequency
on this side is the same as the frequency on that side."

> 2
> how long are you  on this ng ???

There are many newsgroups that this discussion is crossposted to, but
it is fair to say that while I have used Usenet before this particular
moment, I do not recall it being physics-related. Assuming that this
belief is correct the answer is probably "a couple of days."

> just short answers please

Look, I'm going to take enough words to accurately answer the
questions that I want to answer. If you do not like accuracy, then
maybe physics is not the science for you. ^_^;;

== Drostie ==

[papa...@gmail.com]

You see...this "piggy" Porat can not read more than a couple of lines.
More lines make his almost invisible brain to switch to WWII
characters insults.

Also, he is totally unable to answer any question, even the simplest
one like yes or no.

Drink more coffee Porat...it will make your Alzheimer to progress
slower, but I'm afraid it is too late for you anyways.

[Y.Porat]

====================
disturbed imbecile pig hird gangster

you ddint answer how long you are in this ng
and you have good reasons not to answer that!!
2

if f frequency of photons is** not
one second --time dependent**
(a function of )** FOR YOU ***
than go
discuss with the gangster PD that invited you in !!!
not with me
not with a human being here !!

BYE
Y.Porat
-----------------------
-------------------------


then
go discuss withyiur ganster PD
not with me

[Y.Porat]

-------------
(:-)-
hired GANGSTER NO 2

next
Y.P
----------------------

[Androcles]

"Drostie" <chris....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:123aa099-926d-460b...@e2g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...

On Nov 29, 10:24 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc.) wrote:
> >(b) The photon is a conceptual tool we use to understand a truly
> >massive number of different physics experiments. The basic idea is
> >this: "Light is made of 'atoms' or lumps in the sense that, if you
> >turn down the intensity of light far enough, the light comes in
> >discrete units of energy called photons. Each photon has an energy
> >related to its frequency by Planck's constant E = h f."
>
> Ahem! Light does not have a defineable 'frequency'. Nobody has ever
> measured
> such a quantity. (frequency combs claim to beat microwaves with light but
> there are other interpretations)
> Light has a measurable wavelength and because it travels at c wrt its
> source, there is an inference that its 'wavecrests' arrive at a particular
> rate.
>
> Your equation E = h.nu, is meaningless. I challenge you to define the
> 'frequency' of a single photon.
>
> The correct equation is E = h.c/lambda ..or more
> correctly....h(c+v)/lambda....where c+v is the speed of the light wrt the
> observer.

I appreciate that you might happen to not like the time domain for
some reason, but you've given your own definition of frequency in

terms of things that you do happen to like, namely f = c / ?, pretty

simply. I measure, in my reference frame, some wavelength for some
light, and divide by the well-known speed of light in my reference
frame -- which is not c + v but just c. (Unless you really think that
I'm moving through the aether with some velocity -v, but then you
would have the strong problem that (a) experiments disagree and (b)
particle accelerators work.)

In any case, I believe I have risen to your challenge in terms of f =

c / ?,

===================================================
but c = x/t and f = 1/t so c = fx and x is distance for one cycle
so f = f?/? for any value of c whatsoever.

and I will only add that we happen to use the frequency domain
much more exclusively for radios, in which case I can give a similar
definition: "light of a frequency f is the light picked up by this
radio when it's tuned to frequency f."

> >I hope that all helps? Cheers.
>
> As a newbie you probably don't realise that much of what you say is
> regularly discussed here.

Perhaps. My commitment is to help people out. Perhaps, indeed, that
requires repeating things which are already regularly discussed. But I
guess my response is, so what? It's my time spent repeating it, after
all. If it can help and I have the time to write it, why not?

===================================================
You are not helping anyone with tautologous drivel like f = c/?.

[Y.Porat]

On Nov 30, 3:21 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics.November.
2011> wrote:
> "Drostie" <chris.dros...@gmail.com> wrote in message

-----------------
well said Andro !!


Y.P
-----------------------
-------------------------------

[Y.Porat]

--------------
i will ask you in a different more curate way

so no way to cheat: or obfuscate

is f the frequency in hf
(**in the mks system***)---
--- one second time defined ??

TIA
Y.Porat
-----------------------------

[Drostie]

On Nov 30, 1:51 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ====================
>  disturbed imbecile pig  hird gangster

See? This is what I'm saying. If you want to learn, you will have to
stop calling your teachers "disturbed." If you don't want to learn,
you will live a very sad life.

> you ddint answer how long you  are in this ng
> and you have good reasons not to answer that!!

I did answer that question. I said 'There are many newsgroups that

this discussion is crossposted to, but it is fair to say that while I
have used Usenet before this particular moment, I do not recall it
being physics-related. Assuming that this belief is correct the answer

is probably "a couple of days."'

Look. I don't remember *all* of the Usenet groups that I posted in
within my freshman year of college. It is possible that I was actually
here many years ago. But *for your intents and purposes*, I have only
been here a couple of days.

> 2
>
> if    f     frequency of photons is** not
> one second --time dependent**
> (a  function of )**   FOR YOU ***
> than go
> discuss with  the gangster PD that invited you   in !!!
> not with me
> not with a human being  here !!

I have no idea what that sentence is supposed to say, but I can tell
you that Mr. Draper did not invite me in and I do not know him any
more than I know you. I just visited sci.physics to post a funny
article on Topological Quantum Insulators, and then tried to help out
in a rather negative-looking discussion which you started by calling
your teacher a "criminal against mankind."

He may or may not be a "gangster", but I doubt it. Again, I call you
to *wake up* to a humble position as a student, if you wish to learn
and contribute. Namecalling directed at your teachers is juvenile.
These people are donating their time freely to help you.

There was a youth in my early schoolyears who always called people by
vile insults. The only thing he proved was that he contained a lot of
vileness: he was an insult to himself. When he saw that nobody wanted
to sit with him, he was convinced that everyone was out to injure him,
and we were all the subject of his further insults, which pushed us
further away. I do not know what happened to him.

So this much is true, then: you insult your own dignity when you
insult the dignity of others. Then let us end the insults. Try to let
a humble light shine forth in your actions. Try to be a student.

== Drostie ==

[jem]

What's wrong with this picture? Three professional physicists
attempting to educate a bowling pin.

[Drostie]

On Nov 30, 2:21 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics.November.

2011> wrote:
> but c = x/t and f = 1/t so c = fx and x is distance for one cycle

> so f = f ?/? for any value of c whatsoever.

This is true. If light went twice as fast as it goes, then either it
would be twice as long or half as frequent. So what? What else were
you expecting? For any wave in any medium, and as well for light,
frequency and wavelength and wave speed are related by the equation v
= f L.

> You are not helping anyone with tautologous drivel like f = c/?.

I appreciate that the above point was obvious to you, but it was
apparently not obvious to Henry Wilson, and it might be helpful to
*him* even if it is not helpful to *you*.

He said, literally, "light does not have a definable frequency." He
accepted that it travels with a measurable speed, and he accepted that
it had a measurable wavelength, but he insisted that you could not
define its frequency. Both you and I happen to know that we can fall
back on v = f L to define its frequency. He apparently was only quasi-
aware of this: he showed an awareness that you can *replace* f with v/
L in the equations in which f appears, but no awareness that you can
*define* f = v/L to make this point mathematically rigorous.

In that sense, it's not a tautology at all. The point is deeper, and
is that even if you happen to not like time, you can still define
frequency in terms of things like speed and distance. In fact, you can
probably come to an understanding of time this way, if you wish: "time
isn't real, but we're going to pretend it is because this clock moves
at a certain speed through a certain distance."

== Drostie ==

[PD]

On 11/30/2011 12:24 AM, Y.Porat wrote:

>
> hre is just an occasional example
> about 'single phootns'
> i found in Wiki
> --------------------------
> quote
>
> A low-intensity double-slit experiment was first performed by Taylor
> in 1909,[16] by reducing the level of incident light until photon
> emission/absorption events were mostly nonoverlapping. The appearance
> of interference built up from individual photons could be explained by
> understanding that a single photon has its own wavefront that passes
> through both slits, and that the single photon will show up on the
> detector screen according to the net probability values resulting from
> the co-incidence of the two probability waves coming by way of the two
> slits.[17] Note that it is not the probabilities of photons appearing
> at various points along the detection screen that add or cancel, but
> the amplitudes. If there is a cancellation of waves at some point,
> that does not mean that a photon disappears; it only means that the
> probability of a photon's appearing at that point will decrease, and
> the probability that it will appear somewhere else increases.
>
> end of quote !!

Yes, and so what's your question?

[Y.Porat]

----------------------
my question to you PD is:

is f of the hf equation and in the MKS system

one second time defined ??

----
(i suggest that you will be careful with your answer ....))


TIA
Y.Porat
-------------

[papa...@gmail.com]

On 30 nov, 11:12, Drostie <chris.dros...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 30, 1:51 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > ====================
> >  disturbed imbecile pig  hird gangster
>
> See? This is what I'm saying. If you want to learn, you will have to
> stop calling your teachers "disturbed." If you don't want to learn,
> you will live a very sad life.
>

You are dealing with a very perturbed 73 year old "student". He is
totally unable to read continuosly more than a couple of lines. If you
write more lines he will insult you as he already did above. He is a
waste of everybody's time

[PD]

And that is true also for E=hf too. That is, you do not need the n in it
to allow more than one photon per second.

Don't be silly. The photoelectric effect was KNOWN in 1900 to take less
than a second, and E=hf is *perfectly compatible* with it. It does not
need the added n to allow for that.

>
> -------------------------
>>
>> Some outside background reading is recommended. Would you like a
>> recommendation for good instructional references?
>> -----------------
> YES PIG
> THAT IS EXACTLY WAHT I ASKED YOU:
>
> BRING LINKS FOR YOU LIES
> DON T HAND WAVE !!

Not links. Books.
Here's one:
http://www.amazon.com/Modern-Physics-Scientists-Engineers-2nd/dp/013805715X/ref=sr_1_7?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1322672811&sr=1-7

>
> YOUR (only) HAND WAVING
> IS NOT SCIENCE
> NOR DECENT HUMAN BEHAVIOR !!!

I do not attempt to replicate what's in books here. That's not indecent.
It is proper use of a medium.

The data is not in here. The data lie outside the group. I honestly
believe you wouldn't know experimental data if it slapped you in the face.

You look at a formula and call it experimental data. It is not.

> SO WHAT IS IT
> PERSONAL POLITICS AND SHAMELESS CHEATING ??
> ------------
>> newsgroup does not have as its purpose the disproving the statements of
>> cranks and idiots, and NO ONE owns the burden of proof of anything to
>> you. There is ample material OUTSIDE this newsgroup that can provide you
>> with all the information you need to see why your ideas are wrong and
>> what E=hf really means. I'd be happy to use this newsgroup to point you
>> to some of those outside materials.
>> ---------------------
> E=hf
> is the photon energy thatis eitted during one second

Nope, that's wrong! The energy E is the energy in the packet we call a
photon, and that energy is delivered in an eyeblink. It is *related* by
this expression to *another* property of the photon, which is its
frequency. The frequency has NOTHING to do with emission rate or energy
delivery time. It has to do with the *rate* of oscillation of a field.
It has NOTHING to do with the amount of time the energy is delivered in.

This is just a fundamental mistake on your part, and this is why I told
you a couple posts ago that you do not know what E=hf even means. It
tells you NOTHING about how long it is taking to deliver that energy. If
you thought it did, then you misunderstood what it says. Sorry.

[Androcles]

"Drostie" <chris....@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:944ddf6b-7724-495c...@h42g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...

but we're going to pretend it is because this clock moves
at a certain speed through a certain distance."

== Drostie ==

============================================
You've missed the point.
If a cyclic event is emitted every cycle then the period between events
remains one cycle no matter what velocity relative to the source they
happen to be emitted at. For simplicity let the period be one second,
the distance between events be one metre and the velocity be 1 m/s.
All well and good, a receiver at rest relative to the source says
v = fL = 1. If the cyclic events are corks from a popgun then the
impact velocity of each cork on the receiver is 1 m/s.
However, a second receiver approaching the source at 1 m/s finds
the impact velocity of each cork to be 2 m/s.
Being a scientist he is equipped with a stop watch and determines
the period between cork impacts is 0.5 seconds. That's a frequency
of 2 Hz.
Now look at this:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Wave/Relative.gif
What does he "pretend" (your word) the "certain distance" (your words)
between cyclic events to be?

[Drostie]

On Nov 30, 6:49 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics.November.
2011> wrote:
> "Drostie" <chris.dros...@gmail.com> wrote in message

>
> news:944ddf6b-7724-495c...@h42g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
> but we're going to pretend it is because this clock moves
> at a certain speed through a certain distance."
>
> == Drostie ==
> ============================================
> You've missed the point.
> If a cyclic event is emitted every cycle then the period between events
> remains one cycle no matter what velocity relative to the source they
> happen to be emitted at. For simplicity let the period be one second,
> the distance between events be one metre and the velocity be 1 m/s.
> All well and good, a receiver at rest relative to the source says
> v = fL = 1.

Right. Such frequencies tend to stay invariant in the same reference
frame. If I am bicycling to work and singing as I do so, people
standing still on the ground will hear a Doppler shift in my pitch and
think I'm singing off-key while someone bicycling at the same speed
behind me will not.

> If the cyclic events are corks from a popgun then the
> impact velocity of each cork on the receiver is 1 m/s.
> However, a second receiver approaching the source at 1 m/s finds
> the impact velocity of each cork to be 2 m/s.
> Being a scientist he is equipped with a stop watch and determines
> the period between cork impacts is 0.5 seconds. That's a frequency
> of 2 Hz.
> Now look at this:
>  http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Wave/Relative.gif
> What does he "pretend" (your word) the "certain distance" (your words)
> between cyclic events to be?

First off, please don't say "your word" when you're going to use them
in ways that are wildly different from the way I used them. It just
makes things cognitively difficult for me. (In the sense that I had
used those words, he would not "pretend" the existence of any
distance, but would "pretend" to a time interval based on a "certain
distance" traveled by the hand of a clock, and that "certain distance"
would be however far the clock hand goes in 500 ms. Whatever else you
might have meant by this question, that certainly was not it!)

If by "distance between cyclic events" you mean to say that the
"cyclic events" are cork impacts, then the answer is "there is no
distance between them -- impacts are at a constant place in his
reference frame." If the "cyclic events" are cork *firings*, then the
answer is that he cannot figure that out directly from the information
that he has measured so far, but if he does a few more experiments, he
can find out that there is a source which, in his reference frame's
coordinates, moves with a velocity -1 m/s. If you didn't mean "events"
when you said "cyclic events" but instead you meant the distance
between the corks, he can handily calculate that as (2 m/s)/(2 Hz) = 1
m.

Nonetheless I must say that if I have, as you say, "missed the point",
then I'm still "missing the point." As far as I can tell there is
nothing "at stake" here when we talk about corks from a popgun. We
disagree routinely on the speed of corks from a popgun, but we don't
disagree on the speed of particles which have had large amounts of
kinetic energy (relative to their rest mass) dumped into them. Those
particles seem to attain a constant speed, which helps us to build
these massive particle accelerators which function by pouring gobs and
gobs of kinetic energy into particles, assuming that they keep a
constant speed as they fly around in the circle and receive more and
more energy. Photons, which have no rest mass, always have large
amounts of kinetic energy poured into them relative to their rest
mass.

[Timo Nieminen]

So I didn't tell you about that.

[Androcles]

"Drostie" <chris....@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:cf165f13-418d-4838...@w15g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...

==============================================

"he can handily calculate that as (2 m/s)/(2 Hz) = 1m."--Drostie

You have just agreed with Wilson whom you claim you were trying to
help, and disagreed with a clear picture:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Wave/Relative.gif
The lower cycle is certainly a certain distance that is twice the certain
distance of the upper cycle, I'm certain of it without any handy
calculation because I can measure it.
You see, Wilson thinks wavelength is constant in all frames of reference,
Draper (because Einstein said so) thinks velocity is constant in all frames
of reference and Sir Isaac Newton thinks period is constant in all frames
of reference, which I agree with because the red pointer is simultaneously
pointing to the same phase in each cycle.
So you've missed the point of the red pointer.

[Drostie]

On Nov 30, 8:36 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics.November.

I guess I should add a fourth potential meaning which I think perhaps
you might mean by that diagram, although you're right that the diagram
is by no means clear to me. That's a huge problem with diagrams that
don't come with words, and it is why they teach us in early college
that you must always caption your figures in any scientific paper. So
let me add a fourth thing that you might mean by the "distance between
cyclic events":

If by "distance between cyclic events" you mean "the distance measured
*in the ground reference frame* between cork impacts," then again, he
has not measured enough to know how fast he is going yet. If he does,
and he determines that he is going 1 m/s relative to the ground, then
he will have the handy result of (1 m/s) / (2 Hz) = 0.5 m.

On this interpretation, the red pointer is the person in the train,
and the top wave is the corkgun. The corkgun fires at 1 m/s past
someone who is moving at 2 m/s in the same direction and is crashing
into pre-fired corks moving at -1 m/s in his own reference frame. She
thus calculates the rate of the corks to be -1 Hz. The minus sign
tells us that she is crashing into corks already fired -- that is, she
is crashing into corks in reverse order from when they were fired, if
you get my meaning.

However, you are being misled if you think that the serendipitous
"effective" equality of -1 Hz and +1 Hz is anything more than a
curiosity of this image. Had she gone at 3 m/s she would have
calculated the rate of the corks to be -3 Hz.

In any case, under the new definition (the ground-distance between
impacts) the answer is (2 m/s) / (-1 Hz) = -2 m, with the minus sign
again denoting that if you want to look at the corks in the order that
they were fired, you'd have to look backwards in space just as you'd
have to look backwards in time.

Again, I still don't know exactly what you meant by that figure. I am
trying to take a compassionate guess, but until you explain it, I
won't really know what you meant.

Cheers!
== Drostie ==

[Henry Wilson DSc.]

On Wed, 30 Nov 2011 09:54:13 -0000, "Androcles"

<Headm...@Hogwarts.physics.November.2011> wrote:

>
>"Henry Wilson DSc." <..@..> wrote in message
>news:smtbd7pal6qmnila6...@4ax.com...
>| On Wed, 30 Nov 2011 01:30:28 -0000, "Androcles"
>| <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics.November.2011> wrote:
>|
>| >
>| >"Henry Wilson DSc." <..@..> wrote in message
>| >news:0j0bd71pvm2nrn6kp...@4ax.com...
>| >| On Wed, 30 Nov 2011 00:18:13 -0000, "Androcles"
>|
>| >| >Period, Daisy, period. It can't be changed, it is the same in all
>frames
>| >| >of reference because time is the same in all frames of reference.
>| >|
>| >| So a photon has a period does it. What part of the photon is
>oscillating?
>| >
>| >
>| >The magnetic and electric fields. That's what a photon is.
>| > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/AC/photon.gif
>|
>| That looks like some kind of circus act.....
>|
>|
>| ......but actually you are quite close there.
>| Here is the electric field of a photon.
>|
>| www.scisite.info/e-field.exe
>|
>|
>I DON'T RUN UNCERTIFICATED .EXEs

It isn't uncertified...I wrote it.

>| >| >"It would be very unusual to try to measure a moving object. I don't
>| >| >know of any instances where it is done. Any sane person would stop the
>| >| >bloody thing then measure it." -- Wilson
>| >| > news:20090921091548.0...@gmail.com
>| >| >
>| >| >Look, I've stopped the bloody thing: be sane and measure it!
>| >| > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Wave/Relative.gif
>| >|
>| >| I can't see any photons there.
>| >
>| >The photon is the field strength indicated by the sinusoid where the red
>| >pointer is. One cannot draw pictures of energy, Daisy, one can only draw
>| >mathematical models. You can't even draw L=R, but I can.
>|
>| Yes yes yes....we know all about that. According to you, the BBC is still
>| broadcasting the same photon it did in 1912....and a very long photon it
>is.
>|
>Long time or long position? Distance and duration have different units,
>Daisy.

Poor old fella....yer gotta feel sorry for 'im....

[Henry Wilson DSc.]

On Wed, 30 Nov 2011 03:21:13 -0800 (PST), Drostie <chris....@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Nov 29, 10:24 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc.) wrote:
>> >(b) The photon is a conceptual tool we use to understand a truly
>> >massive number of different physics experiments. The basic idea is
>> >this: "Light is made of 'atoms' or lumps in the sense that, if you
>> >turn down the intensity of light far enough, the light comes in
>> >discrete units of energy called photons. Each photon has an energy
>> >related to its frequency by Planck's constant E = h f."
>>
>> Ahem! Light does not have a defineable 'frequency'. Nobody has ever measured
>> such a quantity. (frequency combs claim to beat microwaves with light but
>> there are other interpretations)
>> Light has a measurable wavelength and because it travels at c wrt its
>> source, there is an inference that its 'wavecrests' arrive at a particular
>> rate.
>>
>> Your equation E = h.nu, is meaningless. I challenge you to define the
>> 'frequency' of a single photon.
>>
>> The correct equation is E = h.c/lambda ..or more
>> correctly....h(c+v)/lambda....where c+v is the speed of the light wrt the
>> observer.
>
>I appreciate that you might happen to not like the time domain for
>some reason, but you've given your own definition of frequency in

>terms of things that you do happen to like, namely f = c / ?, pretty

>simply. I measure, in my reference frame, some wavelength for some
>light, and divide by the well-known speed of light in my reference
>frame -- which is not c + v but just c. (Unless you really think that
>I'm moving through the aether with some velocity -v, but then you
>would have the strong problem that (a) experiments disagree and (b)
>particle accelerators work.)

I see your problem...You still believe in an aether...and Santa Claus, I
suppose...

>In any case, I believe I have risen to your challenge in terms of f =

>c / ?, and I will only add that we happen to use the frequency domain

>much more exclusively for radios, in which case I can give a similar
>definition: "light of a frequency f is the light picked up by this
>radio when it's tuned to frequency f."

A radio wave is created by varyng the density of a photon stream from an
antenna. It is not ONE photon, as Androcles believes.

The question is, how can one define a 'frequency' for monochromatic light.

The conventional equation is nu = c/lambda....which in plain terms is just
'wavecrest' arrival rate. Note, 'wavelengths' are measured, not cycles. So
the real task is to find a photon model that includes a physical wavelength.

I have suggested one. "A photon is a lump of 'aether' along which a standing
wave exists, somewhat as per Maxwell's equations. The nodes define a
physical wavelength that is frame invariant".

Others have put forward the idea that a photon is a spinning pair, the
distance between each rotation in its source frame defining a fixed
wavelength.

>> >I hope that all helps? Cheers.
>>
>> As a newbie you probably don't realise that much of what you say is
>> regularly discussed here.
>
>Perhaps. My commitment is to help people out. Perhaps, indeed, that
>requires repeating things which are already regularly discussed. But I
>guess my response is, so what? It's my time spent repeating it, after
>all. If it can help and I have the time to write it, why not?

Well, I didn't want to discourage you. We certainly welcome anyone who can
actually talk physics instead of repeatedly reciting the doctrine of the
Einsteinian church.

[Drostie]

Sorry, this was supposed to say "4 m/s" and -3 Hz" in the
'serendipitous "effective" equality' paragraph.

Also, I forgot to add. I know relativity is a bit of a tense subject
here, for reasons that I don't completely understand, but let me at
least discuss how it informs this discussion. You mentioned Einstein
and we're talking about photons (at least, when we're not talking
about cork guns) so it is worth discussing here.

Constant periods are *very* useful in certain situations. Probably the
most clear ones have to do with cases of local causality. So for
example, think about the wavelength shift when light passes into a
medium where its speed becomes less than c -- if you think purely
causally at the surface, you will think, "a wave cannot come out
faster than it comes in," and you come up with the condition: "f must
be the same across the surface." We could phrase this in quantum
notation by saying that photons, when they refract, do not change
their energy: refraction is elastic.

It turns out that they are *not* so useful when we talk about frames
of reference that move relative to each other at speeds comparable to
the speed of light. Instead, one must take very seriously the
constancy of the speed of light, which is not trusted "because
Einstein said so" but rather for more pragmatic reasons.

The list of "pragmatic reasons" includes such special-and-general
relativity predictions as: particle accelerators work, clocks at
different elevations tick at different rates, we can measure light
displacement by galaxies so well that we can use it to image their
dark matter, positrons exist, the consequences of the spin-statistics
theorem (like superconductors), certain experiments involving muons
living longer than they should, the precession of Mercury, and
finally: general relativity has been used to so precisely model binary
pulsar systems that it is the second most accurately tested theory in
all of physics, second only to the Standard Model of Particle Physics.

I obviously don't have the time to go into all of those and I get the
feeling that it wouldn't necessarily be welcome if I did. But let me
just say that it's not an arbitrary or purely-theoretical idea: it's
at this point such a practical matter that we assume it as part of
certain engineering shortcuts, and the projects that make these
assumptions would have failed miserably had it not been the case.
== Drostie ==

[Henry Wilson DSc.]

On Wed, 30 Nov 2011 12:20:05 -0800 (PST), Drostie <chris....@gmail.com>
wrote:

Before you get too involved, I should warn you that although Andro is
correct in supporting the BaTh and ridiculing Einstein's silly theory, he
doesn't always express himself clearly when putting forward his views.

For instance, Andro believes that a spinning wheel has a natural wavelength.
He also claims that if you walk slowly down the aisle of a plane in flight,
the distance between your feet can become 500 metres or more....very
painful, I'm sure.

Androcles never includes explanations with his little animations so don't
expect any in the future. One must be a mindreader to derive any useful fact
from them.

Now.... you seem to think that I am confused about light's 'frequency' and
that the equation nu = c/L defines it adequately. I am not confused at all.

I have merely tried to explain that the quantity this equation defines is
not intrinsic to the photon but is an observer related one. It is precisely
the "rate of arrival of 'L's at the observer's location". That is dependent
on arrival speed for constant L.

As I stated, the real task is to provide a physical model that defines the
'L' we measure.....which is about the only property of light we CAN measure
easily. We know nothing about the physical nature of a photon during travel.



>Cheers!
>== Drostie ==

[Androcles]

"Drostie" <chris....@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:8c56ee41-0ad3-408c...@y12g2000vba.googlegroups.com...

================================================
I mean L, \lambda, waveLENGTH. I do not mean period or frequency,
time is marked by the blue circle. You've scored a hit, though, with

"distance measured *in the ground reference frame* between cork impacts".

The certain distance is far from certain, it is frame dependent. Time is not
frame dependent, time is absolute.
You have my pity that you need to write an essay to grasp such a simple
concept.
Try L = (c+v)/f instead, and explain it to Wilson. Write a book if
necessary.

[Androcles]

"Drostie" <chris....@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:f4e771e0-b481-4f6d...@q9g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...

==============================================
Yeah, there wouldn't be any chocolate eggs without the Easter Bunny
to lay them, but I obviously don't have the time to go into all of that
biology and I get the feeling that it wouldn't necessarily be welcome

if I did. But let me just say that it's not an arbitrary or purely

theoretical
idea: it's at this point such a practical matter that we assume it as part

of certain engineering shortcuts, and the Easter Sunday that make these

[Timo Nieminen]

No, in the way you seem to mean by "one second time defined".

As the example I gave you using cycles per hour instead of cycles per
second (i.e., hertz) should have made perfectly clear.

If you clearly explain what you mean by "one second time defined",
perhaps this answer might be different.

[Androcles]

"Henry Wilson DSc." <..@..> wrote in message

news:c18dd7173cc0rr0su...@4ax.com...

|| Before you get too involved, I should warn you that although Andro is
| correct in supporting the BaTh and ridiculing Einstein's silly theory, he
| doesn't always express himself clearly when putting forward his views.
|
| For instance, Andro believes that a spinning wheel has a natural
wavelength.
| He also claims that if you walk slowly down the aisle of a plane in
flight,
| the distance between your feet can become 500 metres or more....very
| painful, I'm sure.

Easy enough to check. Punch a hole through the floor of your rusted VW
camper van, dip your sheep-shagging wellies in paint, sit on the floor and
I'll tow it with your Prius while you stamp the pavement with footprints.
And don't lie, I do not support BaTh.

[Androcles]

"Henry Wilson DSc." <..@..> wrote in message

news:hm6dd7ph0cfvrvu08...@4ax.com...

Yeah, this clown should be good for a laugh.

[Drostie]

On Nov 30, 11:40 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics.November.

2011> wrote:
> "Drostie" <chris.dros...@gmail.com> wrote in message

> Yeah, there wouldn't be any chocolate eggs without the Easter Bunny
> to lay them, but I obviously don't have the time to go into all of that
> biology and I get the feeling that it wouldn't necessarily be welcome
> if I did. But let me just say that it's not an arbitrary or purely
> theoretical
> idea: it's at this point such a practical matter that we assume it as part
> of certain engineering shortcuts, and the Easter Sunday that make these
> assumptions would have failed miserably had it not been the case.

I'm confused. Are you really meaning to suggest that there are
external intelligent agents who intervene in all of the aforementioned
experiments to present the illusion that the speed of light is
constant when in fact it is not? Or are you just saying nothing-of-
substance in an artful way?

> I mean L, \lambda, waveLENGTH. I do not mean period or frequency,
> time is marked by the blue circle. You've scored a hit, though, with
>
> "distance measured *in the ground reference frame* between cork impacts".
>
> The certain distance is far from certain, it is frame dependent. Time is not
> frame dependent, time is absolute.
> You have my pity that you need to write an essay to grasp such a simple
> concept.
> Try L = (c+v)/f instead, and explain it to Wilson. Write a book if
> necessary.

If that statement is a "hit" then you do *not* mean "wavelength." The
wavelength of a wave in some reference frame is not observed by
marking out moments in time in some *other* reference frame. If a wave
comes into my train, then I will measure its wavelength with a
coordinate system that moves along with me, not one that stays stuck
to the ground.

I hope you can now see a little bit about why I am being so precise.
It isn't just pedantry. The fact is, you weren't clear enough with
yourself about what you meant, so that the thing you were calling a
"wavelength" was not a wavelength. That's what I'm being careful
about. The reason why I am being very clear about what I mean is
because I know that physics only works if I understand what question I
am asking.

If I am not clear on this, I will make inconsistent statements and
ones that are not precise. I will give you an example from your own
statements: "time is not frame-dependent, time is absolute." Now,
depending on what this means, I might like this if it were true.
Especially, I might like it if it meant that clocks in different
reference frames tick at the same rate -- then relativistic
corrections never occur and my life becomes much easier. But, in this
case, it is wrong: we know, for example, that clocks at different
elevations just *don't* tick at the same rate! We've done those
experiments, we've confirmed that it happens, and any scientist who
could disprove it would generate as much buzz as the LHC fast-neutron
news did. If "time is not frame-dependent, time is absolute" does not
mean "clocks in different places always tick at the same rate," then
we come back to the question of what, precisely, it means. And that's
why it's crucial that I understand what I am saying when I say it, or
what someone is asking when they ask me it.

May you find the sanity of precision in your own life.
== Drostie ==